University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

The UIUC professor has unwittingly revealed a simple truth fatal for Einstein's physics but fundamental for future, Einstein-free physics:

In vacuum, speed of light and frequency vary proportionally while the wavelength of light remains constant, in accordance with the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

The simple truth is also universal:

In vacuum, speed of light and frequency ALWAYS vary proportionally while the wavelength of light ALWAYS remains constant (its value depends only on the emitting substance).

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.

Whatever. Pentcho, Einstein's relativity will never go away just like Newton's or
Maxwell's theories.

End of story.

Stop wasting your life away on junk projects.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 5 December 2023 at 00:08:01 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.
> Whatever. Pentcho, Einstein's relativity will never go away just like Newton's or
> Maxwell's theories.

Or phlogiston.
>
> End of story.

Jan is a queen of England! End of story.

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
>
> The UIUC professor has unwittingly revealed a simple truth fatal for Einstein's physics but fundamental for future, Einstein-free physics:
>
> In vacuum, speed of light and frequency vary proportionally while the wavelength of light remains constant, in accordance with the formula
>
> (speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)
>
> The simple truth is also universal:
>
> In vacuum, speed of light and frequency ALWAYS vary proportionally while the wavelength of light ALWAYS remains constant (its value depends only on the emitting substance).
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
When light waves move from one medium to another, say from a faster to a slower medium (vacuum- air) they must become compressed or they would not retain the information of the relative velocity in a Doppler shift. The relative motion of Sirius and the Sun would be lost. In reality, we know it is 5.5 km/sec because of compression waves. This is because, before the light of Sirius moves through interstellar gas it has a speed of C + 5.5 km/sec. When it enters that gas compression waves form encoding that information. Otherwise, light speed would have to be mostly unaffected by its medium and we know that is not the case. It is in fact tightly constrained by the medium..

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:08:01 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.
> Whatever. Pentcho, Einstein's relativity will never go away just like Newton's or
> Maxwell's theories.
>
> End of story.
>
> Stop wasting your life away on junk projects.
>
> --
> Jan
Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
>
> The UIUC professor has unwittingly revealed a simple truth fatal for Einstein's physics but fundamental for future, Einstein-free physics:
>
> In vacuum, speed of light and frequency vary proportionally while the wavelength of light remains constant, in accordance with the formula
>
> (speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)
>
> The simple truth is also universal:
>
> In vacuum, speed of light and frequency ALWAYS vary proportionally while the wavelength of light ALWAYS remains constant (its value depends only on the emitting substance).
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
What is left of relativity? There is a pointless Lorentz Transformation that serves no purpose. It is not needed to determine the speed of light because that is determined by the medium. We are still left with additive velocity, sometimes denied by relativists and sometimes accepted as "closing speeds." Relativity is entirely unnecessary.

Den 06.12.2023 20:07, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> When light waves move from one medium to another, say from a faster to a slower medium (vacuum- air) they must become compressed or they would not retain the information of the relative velocity in a Doppler shift. The relative motion of Sirius and the Sun would be lost. In reality, we know it is 5.5 km/sec because of compression waves. This is because, before the light of Sirius moves through interstellar gas it has a speed of C + 5.5 km/sec. When it enters that gas compression waves form encoding that information. Otherwise, light speed would have to be mostly unaffected by its medium and we know that is not the case. It is in fact tightly constrained by the medium.

The frequency of light isn't affected by the medium.
That's why the Doppler shift measured on the Earth only
depend on the relative velocity source-Earth.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 06.12.2023 20:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> What is left of relativity? There is a pointless Lorentz Transformation that serves no purpose. It is not needed to determine the speed of light because that is determined by the medium. We are still left with additive velocity, sometimes denied by relativists and sometimes accepted as "closing speeds." Relativity is entirely unnecessary.

The speed of light in glass is c/n.
So why doesn't the value of the index of refraction n
affect the phase shift in a fiber optic gyro?

https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.

Is relativity discarded in QED?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.

Is relativity discarded in QED?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:15 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.12.2023 20:07, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > When light waves move from one medium to another, say from a faster to a slower medium (vacuum- air) they must become compressed or they would not retain the information of the relative velocity in a Doppler shift. The relative motion of Sirius and the Sun would be lost. In reality, we know it is 5.5 km/sec because of compression waves. This is because, before the light of Sirius moves through interstellar gas it has a speed of C + 5.5 km/sec.. When it enters that gas compression waves form encoding that information. Otherwise, light speed would have to be mostly unaffected by its medium and we know that is not the case. It is in fact tightly constrained by the medium.
> The frequency of light isn't affected by the medium.
> That's why the Doppler shift measured on the Earth only
> depend on the relative velocity source-Earth.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
I did not say the frequency was affected by the medium. The wavelength is. That is what a compression wave is and why it encodes the relative velocity, giving the Doppler shift. Without that, we would not know the relative velocity of Sirius and the Sun from the wavelength. (You confused me with Valev).

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:21 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.
> Is relativity discarded in QED?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
It's discarded by me and all good scientists.

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:15 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 06.12.2023 20:07, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > When light waves move from one medium to another, say from a faster to a slower medium (vacuum- air) they must become compressed or they would not retain the information of the relative velocity in a Doppler shift. The relative motion of Sirius and the Sun would be lost. In reality, we know it is 5.5 km/sec because of compression waves. This is because, before the light of Sirius moves through interstellar gas it has a speed of C + 5.5 km/sec. When it enters that gas compression waves form encoding that information. Otherwise, light speed would have to be mostly unaffected by its medium and we know that is not the case. It is in fact tightly constrained by the medium.
> > The frequency of light isn't affected by the medium.
> > That's why the Doppler shift measured on the Earth only
> > depend on the relative velocity source-Earth.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> I did not say the frequency was affected by the medium. The wavelength is.. That is what a compression wave is and why it encodes the relative velocity, giving the Doppler shift. Without that, we would not know the relative velocity of Sirius and the Sun from the wavelength. (You confused me with Valev).
The Doppler shift gives the relative velocity because the light itself was going at C+-V because in the vacuum before encountering interstellar gas the light is going C+-V.

Den 09.12.2023 05:42, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:15 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 06.12.2023 20:07, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

>>>> When light waves move from one medium to another, say from a faster to a slower medium (vacuum- air) they must become compressed or they would not retain the information of the relative velocity in a Doppler shift. The relative motion of Sirius and the Sun would be lost. In reality, we know it is 5.5 km/sec because of compression waves. This is because, before the light of Sirius moves through interstellar gas it has a speed of C + 5.5 km/sec. When it enters that gas compression waves form encoding that information. Otherwise, light speed would have to be mostly unaffected by its medium and we know that is not the case. It is in fact tightly constrained by the medium.

>>> The frequency of light isn't affected by the medium.
>>> That's why the Doppler shift measured on the Earth only
>>> depend on the relative velocity source-Earth.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/

>> I did not say the frequency was affected by the medium. The wavelength is. That is what a compression wave is and why it encodes the relative velocity, giving the Doppler shift. Without that, we would not know the relative velocity of Sirius and the Sun from the wavelength. (You confused me with Valev).

> The Doppler shift gives the relative velocity because the light itself was going at C+-V because in the vacuum before encountering interstellar gas the light is going C+-V.

According to Galilean relativity the wavelength isn't
Doppler shifted at all.

The equation f⋅λ = c' must always be fulfilled by definition.
f is the frequency, λ is the wavelength, and c' is the speed of light.

If a star is receding with the speed v, and the frequency
of a known spectral line (say H-alpha) is f₀, then f₀⋅λ₀ = c and:

λ₀ = c/f₀

The received frequency is f = f₀(c-v)/c and the speed of light
is (c - v) so we have: f⋅λ = c-v and:

λ = (c-v)/f = (c-v)/(f₀(c-v)/c) = c/f₀ = λ₀

So if the speed of light from a receding star is c-v,
then the wavelength is not affected by the speed of the source
relative to the receiver.

The wavelength is not Doppler shifted and carry no information
about the speed of the source!

But in the real world we know that the frequency and the wavelength
both are Doppler shifted, so that if f = Df₀, then λ = λ₀/D

So f⋅λ = f₀⋅λ₀ = c

Which shows that the speed of light is invariant.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 09.12.2023 04:52, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:21 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

>>> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.

>> Is relativity discarded in QED?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>

>> https://paulba.no/
> It's discarded by me and all good scientists.

You didn't answer the question.
You said that relativity will be discarded because it is
in conflict with quantum physics.

QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory
which describes the interaction between light and matter
(via electrons).

Note that the answer to the question below is not
a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

The question is:
Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
conflict with quantum physics?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.12.2023 04:52, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:21 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>
> >>> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.
>
> >> Is relativity discarded in QED?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> > It's discarded by me and all good scientists.
> You didn't answer the question.
> You said that relativity will be discarded because it is
> in conflict with quantum physics.
>
> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory
> which describes the interaction between light and matter
> (via electrons).
>
> Note that the answer to the question below is not
> a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
>
> The question is:
> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> conflict with quantum physics?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
If QED does not discard relativity entirely it is not entirely physics.

Den 09.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.12.2023 05:42, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>
>>> The Doppler shift gives the relative velocity because the light itself was going at C+-V because in the vacuum before encountering interstellar gas the light is going C+-V.

>> According to Galilean relativity the wavelength isn't
>> Doppler shifted at all.
>>
>> The equation f⋅λ = c' must always be fulfilled by definition.
>> f is the frequency, λ is the wavelength, and c' is the speed of light.
>>
>> If a star is receding with the speed v, and the frequency
>> of a known spectral line (say H-alpha) is f₀, then f₀⋅λ₀ = c and:
>>
>> λ₀ = c/f₀
>>
>> The received frequency is f = f₀(c-v)/c and the speed of light
>> is (c - v) so we have: f⋅λ = c-v and:
>>
>> λ = (c-v)/f = (c-v)/(f₀(c-v)/c) = c/f₀ = λ₀
>>
>> So if the speed of light from a receding star is c-v,
>> then the wavelength is not affected by the speed of the source
>> relative to the receiver.
>>
>> The wavelength is not Doppler shifted and carry no information
>> about the speed of the source!
>>
>> But in the real world we know that the frequency and the wavelength
>> both are Doppler shifted, so that if f = Df₀, then λ = λ₀/D
>>
>> So f⋅λ = f₀⋅λ₀ = c
>>
>> Which shows that the speed of light is invariant.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

Your responses:

> The Doppler shift can only convey information about the relative speeds if the light itself actually had those speeds.

> If the frequency and wavelength canceled each other out, no Doppler effect would be encoded. The existence of the Doppler shift proves light speed is variable.

> Whether it is a wavelength or frequency, the difference in distance between crests and troughs vs. time is identical.

> It would either be a compression wave or frequency difference and not both combined. Your math is divorced from physics, so it is a lie.

> As I was pointing out to Valev, it is the wavelength and not the frequency that changes.

Let's go through it step by step.
Please respond to my questions below.

The medium is vacuum all the way.

If the frequency of a wave is f and its wavelength is λ
and the speed of the wave is c', then the equation:
f⋅λ = c' (1)
must be fulfilled BY DEFINITION!

Question #1: Do you understand and accept this?
__________________

A star is emitting a H-alpha spectral line with
frequency f₀ and wavelength λ₀. The speed of
light relative to the star is c, so:
f₀⋅λ₀ = c (2)

Question #2: Do you understand and accept this?
_____________________________

The star is receding from the Earth with the speed v.
We are measuring the frequency of the H-alpha line
to be f and the wavelength to be λ.

According to you, the speed of the light from the star is c-v.
So we have:
f⋅λ = c-v (3)

Question #3: Do you understand and accept this?
_____________________________

Let's find the Doppler shift of the light from the star.

Let the star be stationary in frame K'(t, x')
and let the Earth be stationary in frame K(t, x)

The wave can be expressed as:
In the rest frame of the star K': A⋅cos(Φ'(t, x'))
In the rest frame of the Earth: A⋅cos(Φ(t,x))
where:
Φ'(t,x') = 2πf₀t - (2π/λ₀)x' (4)
Φ(t,x) = 2πft - (2π/λ)x (5)

According to equation (2) we have:
2π/λ₀ = 2πf₀/c so (4) can be written:

Φ'(t,x') = 2πf₀t - (2πf₀/c)x' (6)

We transform Φ'(t,x') to Φ(t,x) by using the Galilean transform:

x' = x + vt

Φ(t,x) = 2πf₀t - (2πf₀/c)(x + vt) = 2πf₀(1-v/c)t + (2πf₀/c)x

f₀/c = 1/λ₀ so:

Φ(t,x) = 2πf₀(1-v/c)t + (2π/λ₀)x

by comparison with (5) we see that:
f = f₀(1-v/c) = f₀((c-v)/c) (7)
λ = λ₀

The frequency is Doppler shifted, but there is no Doppler shift of
the wavelength.

Question #4: Do you understand and accept this?
_____________________________

We can now insert (7) in (3)

f⋅λ = f₀(1-v/c)λ = f₀λ(c-v)/c = (c-v)

so f₀λ/c = 1 => λ = λ₀

Inevitable conclusion:
======================
If the speed of light from the receding star is c-v
then the Doppler shift of the frequency is (1-v/c)
and there is no Doppler shift of the wavelength.

Question #5: Do you understand and accept this?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 09.12.2023 20:12, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.12.2023 04:52, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:21 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>
>>>>> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.
>>
>>>> Is relativity discarded in QED?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>
>>>> https://paulba.no/
>>> It's discarded by me and all good scientists.
>> You didn't answer the question.

>> You said that relativity will be discarded because it is
>> in conflict with quantum physics.
>>
>> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory
>> which describes the interaction between light and matter
>> (via electrons).
>>
>> Note that the answer to the question below is not
>> a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
>>
>> The question is:
>> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
>> conflict with quantum physics?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

> If QED does not discard relativity entirely it is not entirely physics.
Your opinion of QED is irrelevant.

Indisputable fact:
QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
describes the interaction between light and matter.

You have still not answered the question:

Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
conflict with quantum physics?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.12.2023 20:12, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.12.2023 04:52, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:51:21 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 06.12.2023 20:10, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>
> >>>>> Relativity will be discarded soon for the junk project it is. It is already in conflict with quantum physics over absolute time. Physics will win over relativistic pseudo-physics.
> >>
> >>>> Is relativity discarded in QED?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> https://paulba.no/
> >>> It's discarded by me and all good scientists.
> >> You didn't answer the question.
>
> >> You said that relativity will be discarded because it is
> >> in conflict with quantum physics.
> >>
> >> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory
> >> which describes the interaction between light and matter
> >> (via electrons).
> >>
> >> Note that the answer to the question below is not
> >> a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
> >>
> >> The question is:
> >> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> >> conflict with quantum physics?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
>
> > If QED does not discard relativity entirely it is not entirely physics.
> Your opinion of QED is irrelevant.
>
> Indisputable fact:
> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
> describes the interaction between light and matter.
>
> You have still not answered the question:
> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> conflict with quantum physics?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.

Den 10.12.2023 23:58, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Let's go through it step by step.
>> Please respond to my questions below.
>>
>> The medium is vacuum all the way.
>>
>> If the frequency of a wave is f and its wavelength is λ
>> and the speed of the wave is c', then the equation:
>> f⋅λ = c' (1)
>> must be fulfilled BY DEFINITION!
>>
>> Question #1: Do you understand and accept this?
>> __________________
>>
>> A star is emitting a H-alpha spectral line with
>> frequency f₀ and wavelength λ₀. The speed of
>> light relative to the star is c, so:
>> f₀⋅λ₀ = c (2)
>>
>> Question #2: Do you understand and accept this?
>> _____________________________
>>
>> The star is receding from the Earth with the speed v.
>> We are measuring the frequency of the H-alpha line
>> to be f and the wavelength to be λ.
>>
>> According to you, the speed of the light from the star is c-v.
>> So we have:
>> f⋅λ = c-v (3)
>>
>> Question #3: Do you understand and accept this?
>> _____________________________
>>
>> Let's find the Doppler shift of the light from the star.
>>
>> Let the star be stationary in frame K'(t, x')
>> and let the Earth be stationary in frame K(t, x)
>>
>> The wave can be expressed as:
>> In the rest frame of the star K': A⋅cos(Φ'(t, x'))
>> In the rest frame of the Earth: A⋅cos(Φ(t,x))
>> where:
>> Φ'(t,x') = 2πf₀t - (2π/λ₀)x' (4)
>> Φ(t,x) = 2πft - (2π/λ)x (5)
>>
>> According to equation (2) we have:
>> 2π/λ₀ = 2πf₀/c so (4) can be written:
>>
>> Φ'(t,x') = 2πf₀t - (2πf₀/c)x' (6)
>>
>> We transform Φ'(t,x') to Φ(t,x) by using the Galilean transform:
>>
>> x' = x + vt
>>
>> Φ(t,x) = 2πf₀t - (2πf₀/c)(x + vt) = 2πf₀(1-v/c)t + (2πf₀/c)x
>>
>> f₀/c = 1/λ₀ so:
>>
>> Φ(t,x) = 2πf₀(1-v/c)t + (2π/λ₀)x
>>
>> by comparison with (5) we see that:
>> f = f₀(1-v/c) = f₀((c-v)/c) (7)
>> λ = λ₀
>>
>> The frequency is Doppler shifted, but there is no Doppler shift of
>> the wavelength.
>>
>> Question #4: Do you understand and accept this?
>> _____________________________
>>
>> We can now insert (7) in (3)
>>
>> f⋅λ = f₀(1-v/c)λ = f₀λ(c-v)/c = (c-v)
>>
>> so f₀λ/c = 1 => λ = λ₀
>>
>> Inevitable conclusion:
>> ======================
>> If the speed of light from the receding star is c-v
>> then the Doppler shift of the frequency is (1-v/c)
>> and there is no Doppler shift of the wavelength.
>>
>> Question #5: Do you understand and accept this?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

> Can you understand that you can find the speed of the ambulance from the frequency of the sound, therefore the sound must initially have been moving at S + V for the compression waves to have encoded that data? The same for light.

Let's for simplicity assume that we know the ambulance
is emitting a single frequency f₀'.
When the ambulance is stationary in the air,
the wavelength is λ₀ = S/f. f₀⋅λ₀ = S

Yes, if we are stationary in the air we can measure
the received frequency f.

The speed of sound S = 340 m/s relative to the air.
If the ambulance is approaching at the speed V:
f = S/(S-V)f₀ = Df₀
λ = ((S-V)/S)λ₀ = (1/D)λ₀
f⋅λ = S
V = (f/f₀ - 1)S = (λ₀/λ - 1)S

The Doppler shift of the frequency is inverse to
the Doppler shift of the wavelength BECAUSE the speed
of sound relative to the receiver does NOT depend on
the speed of the source.

Can you now answer my questions #1 and #5?
__________________

If the frequency of a wave is f and its wavelength is λ
and the speed of the wave is c', then the equation:
f⋅λ = c' (1)
must be fulfilled BY DEFINITION!

Question #1: Do you understand and accept this?
__________________

When the speed of light DO depend on the speed of the source.we have:

Inevitable conclusion:
======================
If the speed of light from the receding star is c-v
then the Doppler shift of the frequency is (1-v/c)
and there is no Doppler shift of the wavelength.

Question #5: Do you understand and accept this?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 10.12.2023 20:47, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Indisputable fact:
>> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
>> describes the interaction between light and matter.
>>
>> You have still not answered the question:
>> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
>> conflict with quantum physics?

> I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.

This is correct if "physics" is Newtonian mechanics.

But the still unanswered question is:
"Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
conflict with quantum physics?"

The fact is that QED is based on SR.

So you were wrong when you claimed:
"It [relativity] is already in conflict with quantum physics."

Will you admit your error? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 10.12.2023 20:47, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12?AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> Indisputable fact:
> >> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
> >> describes the interaction between light and matter.
> >>
> >> You have still not answered the question:
> >> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> >> conflict with quantum physics?
>
> > I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.
>
> This is correct if "physics" is Newtonian mechanics.
>
> But the still unanswered question is:
> "Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> conflict with quantum physics?"
>
> The fact is that QED is based on SR.

Indeed, early attempts to develop quantum field theory
before WWII bogged down in the computational complexities,
if they were not downright wrong.
QED didn't take off until people realised
that progress in quantum field theory is possible
only when special relativity is incorporated throughout,
and right from the beginning.
Conversely, the immense succes of QED makes it blindingly obvious
that all present and future physics must incorporate special relativity.

> So you were wrong when you claimed:
> "It [relativity] is already in conflict with quantum physics."
>
> Will you admit your error? :-D

You must be joking,

Jan

On Monday 11 December 2023 at 23:12:07 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen <relat...@paulba.no> wrote:
>
> > Den 10.12.2023 20:47, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12?AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Indisputable fact:
> > >> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
> > >> describes the interaction between light and matter.
> > >>
> > >> You have still not answered the question:
> > >> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> > >> conflict with quantum physics?
> >
> > > I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.
> >
> > This is correct if "physics" is Newtonian mechanics.
> >
> > But the still unanswered question is:
> > "Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> > conflict with quantum physics?"
> >
> > The fact is that QED is based on SR.

A lie, of course, as expected from a fanatic idiot.

> Indeed, early attempts to develop quantum field theory
> before WWII bogged down in the computational complexities,
> if they were not downright wrong.
> QED didn't take off until people realised
> that progress in quantum field theory is possible
> only when special relativity is incorporated throughout,
> and right from the beginning.
> Conversely, the immense succes of QED makes it blindingly obvious
> that all present and future physics must incorporate special relativity.

It's only blindingly obvious for some brainwashed
fanatic idiots.

On 12/11/2023 2:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.12.2023 20:47, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Indisputable fact:
>>> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
>>> describes the interaction between light and matter.
>>>
>>> You have still not answered the question:
>>> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
>>> conflict with quantum physics?
>
>> I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.
>
> This is correct if "physics" is Newtonian mechanics.
>
> But the still unanswered question is:
> "Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
>  conflict with quantum physics?"
>
> The fact is that QED is based on SR.
>
> So you were wrong when you claimed:
> "It [relativity] is already in conflict with quantum physics."
>
hehehe...you tricked him...
>
> Will you admit your error? :-D
>
Of course he won't.

On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 03:59:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 2:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 10.12.2023 20:47, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:46:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Indisputable fact:
> >>> QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the quantum physics theory which
> >>> describes the interaction between light and matter.
> >>>
> >>> You have still not answered the question:
> >>> Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> >>> conflict with quantum physics?
> >
> >> I don't care because relativity is in conflict with physics.
> >
> > This is correct if "physics" is Newtonian mechanics.
> >
> > But the still unanswered question is:
> > "Is relativity discarded in QED because it is in
> > conflict with quantum physics?"
> >
> > The fact is that QED is based on SR.
> >
> > So you were wrong when you claimed:
> > "It [relativity] is already in conflict with quantum physics."
> >
> hehehe...you tricked him...

Tricked? Let's get it strictly, stupid Mike - your fellow
idiot is lying impudently, as expected from a relativistic
idiot.